Analysis Of The Main Issues And The Construction Of The Play Intimate Apparel By Lynn Nottage
Intimate Apparel by Lynn Nottage is a tale about relationships and affection in the 1900’s. This play involving 4 women and 2 men, serves as a depiction of how both interpersonal intimacy (both physical and emotional) and external systemic factors can transform relationship in more ways than you can imagine, be it a platonic relationship or a romantic one. Ester learns this throughout the play, turning from a sweet innocent seamstress into someone who has been through a lot in a little time. The show starts out with a scene from Ester’s bedroom where she is sewing a corset for a white rich girl. This sets the tone of Ester longing for something she doesn’t have, in this case a husband who she can count on to provide for her, so she can open the business she has been putting in the intense work to open, her own beauty parlor for African Americans. She wants someone to be there for her, and while Mrs. Dickson is in a non-romantic sense (This becomes apparent throughout the play in various ways such as taking her in at the end), you get the sense that she deeply longs to be in an ideal romantic relationship, even though she has pulled off being independent this far. Then, her landlord presents her with a letter, and the complexity that comes with the search and building of a relationship is going to be front and center throughout the play, helping the reader to start looking for themes related to love and friendship.
Arguably the most prominent reasons that cause issues in this play between characters is that of those along the cultural/systemic reasons. Apparent early is Ester’s disappointment that white girls are the preferred type for the men she knows, as she tends to see a different side of the women then most people do. The social standards of the time, where sexual intimacy between partners was not talked about, opens the door for a discrete business. With that discretion comes a product, but customers feel safe talking to her about their problems because if they got out that would ruin her reputation as someone who could be discrete. The case you see this with is Mrs. Van Buren, because they really should not be that good of friends, but as Mrs. Van Buren is somewhat lonely emotionally, it happens with Mrs. Van Buren forcing Ester to be discrete in more ways than just her having made her something ‘intimate’. Now they are at a stage where at least Mrs. Van Buren is emotionally intimate with Ester. With the humor that Mrs. Van Buren uses throughout the play, it shows that she kind of views this as somewhat of a light-hearted activity, something that she can do for fun and to expand her horizons. This effect is further portrayed when Ester asks, assumingly knowing the answer, if she could come to Mrs. Van Buren to the Opera and she is met with a “You wouldn’t like it, but you know I would if I could response”. This proves to not only Ester, but the audience that Mrs. Van Buren is treating this as an avenue for her to pass her time and using Ester’s discrete qualities to her advantage. A second example of this cultural influence in relationships, is when Ester develops feeling for somebody doing their job, Mr. Marks. She is interacting with someone who is treating her above and beyond what someone in his position would normally do. You immediately pick up as a viewer in the audience that there is an attraction, but something feels off. Immediately the reader assumes that it is due to some sort of discrimination, especially the second she tries to touch Mr. Marks hand, but he pulls away. Immediately assuming its because of her color, Ester gets dejected. Instead, the explanation of his arranged marriage and restrictions of lifestyle due to religious reasons develops sympathy for both parties. One of the phrases about relationships that is most prominent in today’s society, “Timing is everything” applies multiple times throughout their interactions as well such as when they have a moment, but Ester still feels loyalty to George and the sanctity of marriage and “working it out” as she has been taught through the American culture of love. The irony in the arranged marriage theme is that in a general sense Ester’s marriage was, due to cultural expectations, arranged as well. Ester cannot read nor write. George paid someone to write his letters for him as well. Ester as a seamstress was dealing with the cultural prerogative to marry and have a family, while George in Panama building the canal has heard all about the idealized American dream and hard work. Mrs. Dickson is the one who puts George in contact with ester, though you do see the difference in the culture between Mrs. Dickson, the “motherly figure”, in trying to talk Ester out of responding due to red flags in communication and Mr. Marks being stuck not meeting his betrothed with almost no communication between the two. The influence of American culture eventually gets to Mr. Marks however, and he breaks from tradition due to the culture he is in influencing on a constant basis more than his ancestors. This vow breaking by Mr. Marks is contrasted when the opposite happens with George. The American influence on George leads him to feel emasculated by Ester making more money than him, which sets him up to do something rash. This flowing dynamic helps portray how fluid and complex relationships can be due to a mix of cultural influence and personal reaction to those influences.
The way this play was set up, it is fast moving with no lull other than the intermission and when they are setting up the photo at the end of each act. This was the most effective visual for me, as it really solidified how the characters were viewed at the time, but also how we view them now when we look back on that picture. It showed that no matter your status to society, or whether you are even in that society (as the case was with George starting out) that everyone is looking to not be lonely and to improve their lives. It was so effective for me, because I will admit I am guilty of looking at photos in history like that and just glossing over it. It is also effective because we have these same issues today, and one day we will be looked at by history in a glossing over manner as well. Another thing I extracted from the way the play was designed is the way they had the girls talking about what they should say to George. It was in a manner that you never truly heard what Ester said in the letter, they would cut out as they were starting to write it, leaving the audience to imagine what happened. Whereas with George it was the exact opposite. I liken this to text messaging in today’s age, you receive a block of words with no idea what the exact thoughts were of the person writing the message. The opposite is true when you send one back, and that can create miscommunication and complexity within a dynamic relationship, something that happened when Ester and George both had illusions about one another. The way the relationship that was forming between George and Mayme was revealed to Ester was another way that personal bias can cause unforeseen harm. When describing the guy to Ester, Mayme was talking unfiltered about her opinions about how the guy has a wife and she doesn’t care to Ester. Once Ester realized that it was George via the jacket, she didn’t disclose that, the audience reacted in a manner that was more extreme than Ester’s. She simply lined her questioning in a vague manner. This was an incredibly effective scene to draw meaning from, because it really provided insight in play form to what everybody knows about human nature in a dramatic fashion. Something that effects someone we don’t know doesn’t matter to us as much when we have ‘rose-colored’ glasses on. Especially when you look at George and Ester’s relationship coinciding in that. George had ‘rose-colored’ glasses on when it came to the American dream, and he felt so passionately about his success that he was willing to steal from someone who took a chance on him, though he didn’t truly know her that well. In a male dominated society, he viewed his wife having more money than him as a threat to his manhood. This threat was covered up with material things, such as gambling, drinking and prostitutes. Ester had the same bias towards George, but in a naïve manner. She wanted George to love him and be happy, so at the end of the play she finally breaks down and wears the corset trying to get George to want her, becoming the last girl to do so and get “physically intimate” besides Mrs. Dickson (The motherly figure who only gets emotionally intimate). This last ditch effort is influenced by both Ester thinking he wants someone like Mayme, and the fact that George was only focused on consummating their marriage the first night. It backfired heavily, as she gave him the money, a material thing, after the intimacy did not work.
Because this play was majority in the perspective of Ester, it was very effective to have George just disappear and them not have a final interaction once the money is gone. This effectively puts the viewer in her shoes, because if we want that resolve and we are only witnesses we can only imagine what she is feeling. Then after her meeting with Mr. Marks and the proceeding final “unidentified seamstress” with the picture of the same year, you are forced to ponder in the silence before the applause, which is very effective to drive the point home that relationships can fail and there are so many reasons why, coinciding or not, and that these leaps of faith were the reality for that time period.
